2. Truth, Compassion, and Their Grim Opposites: Deceit and Cruelty

In my previous essay, I noted that deceit and cruelty are two tactics the Trump administration is using widely. The opposite values, truthfulness and compassion, seem to be scarce, on the run. These aspirational values are like idea-fugitives now, chased out of the public realm. This administration has shifted the perception of what is acceptable, making deceit and cruelty commonplace. Our world has become so accustomed to this.

These two sets of opposing words—truth and deceit plus compassion and cruelty—are barometers of our moral climate, and honestly, I am disheartened by what is going on. Are we really OK with deceit and cruelty being so common now?

Let’s start with truthfulness and deceit. From my youth, I was told that truthfulness is an admirable moral quality. As a child, I knew lying was wrong, and I believed that most of society felt this way. My Christian upbringing taught that lying was sinful. Even the Ten Commandments prohibit bearing false witness against a neighbor. I lied sometimes, for sure, but I mostly felt rotten afterward.

Even now I can remember a specific lie I told as a child; it has stayed with me all these years. It was so dumb. Instead of pressing the handle of our glass storm door to our house, I decided to kick it open. It was a lever handle. Kicking it open seemed doable and kind of fun. This was not an angry kick, more of a summer-boredom kick. I failed. The glass shattered. No injuries, just my pride. Mom came over hurriedly and asked what had happened. I can still remember it. With a straight face, I said, “The wind did it.” Yes. Not my best moment. She did not fall for that line. Geez, so embarrassing. I was a kid, an older kid, but not grown. Still, immediately I knew that was wrong. Not just dumb, but a violation, a degradation of my relationship with Mom. Her capacity for forgiveness and love was immense. She did not hold this over me, but I learned a lesson about lying. I’m still embarrassed by that day, much more by the lie than the attempted kick.

Whether a statement is factually accurate now seems secondary to whether it’s useful. Truthfulness now seems optional. We really can’t believe what we hear or read without separate verification—crazy. Just yesterday I received two texts that were scams, saying something completely untrue to get me to click and then pay for something false. This happens all the time, so much so that it seems normal. Maybe it is because the volume of information flowing today is so huge and the use of social media distances words typed on screens from the author of those words. I don’t know, but something essential has changed. This is a step backward for society.

Why we still listen to what our president says confounds me. He continually disrespects the truth and has no credibility. He will not allow himself to be bound by considerations of truth, accuracy, or factual matters. We can’t avoid his actions, but listening and buying into his words is optional. It’s our choice. We would be wise not to believe anything he says. We need to stop treating his unreliable speech as if it were factually true.

Truthfulness goes hand in hand with transparency. By this I mean practicing fiduciary responsibility and avoiding conflicts of interest in business dealings. Despite not being the most substantial objection I have to the current order, this is still a significant concern for me, given my professional business background. My employers all have policies against employee conflicts of interest. For example, we were required to disclose to the company legal team whether any members of our family were involved with the company as vendors or customers. Conflicts like this may compromise impartiality and lead to bad choices and possibly fraud.

This administration is unwilling to divest investments or put assets with potential conflicts of interest into blind trusts. Some of our leaders intentionally profit from their position in ways that were thought of as distasteful in the past. This is not the worst thing ever, but it shows a disregard for an ethical business orientation. It shows an unwillingness to put a solid ethical principle above one’s own opportunity for gain.

Then there is an overabundance of cruelty and a lack of compassion. I hear language from our leadership that seems cruel toward the most at-risk groups. These include anyone who differs from the straight, white, English-speaking man image they idealize. I am of the “in” group, a straight, white man, but I am not all right with bashing or derogatory language and treatment of a group. Though I’ve left the Catholic Church, I recall Jesus’s teaching from my childhood: Matthew 25:40, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” I appreciate the need for policy changes. We here in the USA need to do better, we really do, but must we be so mean?

I speak up now to state my dissent with this way of life. I’m pulling the virtual fire alarm because something important is on fire now. What does this imply about aspiring to be “good” at all? I’m worried about the direction we’re heading. Maybe our new US leadership team and its associates have canceled the idea of morality, scratched it altogether. Perhaps our country’s leaders are the new pioneers joyfully leading us into a post-moral wilderness, a world to be owned by only the most powerful thugs.

I see why they might ignore the ideal of morality. It is pretty simple. Refusing a moral code removes any obligation for self-restraint. The only limit to what they will do is what they can do. If your concern about right and wrong causes you to restrain your own behavior, then you are at a disadvantage to those unrestrained people who do not recognize that this is an important part of living in a civilized society. Morality deniers have many more options than those old-school “losers” restraining themselves and trying to be good.

Beyond that, to the morally unrestrained thug, the idea of morality itself is a handy and effective tool to control others. It’s a powerful tactic. They know some people are concerned about behaving rightly, so the thug uses this moral orientation against them. The morally absent people use the concept of right and wrong to manufacture guilt and shame among those they would control. This keeps those who humanely try to honor a personal moral code stuck in guilt, lamenting their own shortcomings while the unrestrained take over. Pushing out loud for morality while not following it themselves is a tactic some people use to get others to comply or submit.

Maybe in 2025, there really only is the pursuit of power and dominance. We really are in a world in which aspiring toward high ideals is for losers. Should we drop the Golden Rule and teach only power- and domination-type skills to our children? Is it OK to lie and abuse others if that seems as though it would help you get ahead? I know I am ranting here, but are the qualities I admire in my parents, grandparents, and heroes now just relics, quaint antique attitudes of a bygone time?

No, I can’t buy into this. I stand firm against the idea of a post-moral world, a world where high ideals are obsolete. There remains so much good out there. Every day, I see people behaving compassionately and truthfully. When Carolyn and I walk our dog, Bradley, we see strangers being kind to one another, doors held open, poop picked up. I see compassion and truthfulness—two indicators of my neighborhood’s moral health—in the people I talk to each day, but these values are under assault, and under assault by the most powerful people alive.

What can we do about this ugly national situation? Is there a real difference between truthfulness and falsity and between compassion and cruelty? Equally important, does it matter which one we choose in our daily lives? Yes, I think there is a difference, and it matters what we choose. This is not because of concerns about sin or heaven and hell; this is about building a world in which humans—and life, broadly speaking—can thrive.

If we conclude it does matter and that morality is fundamental, we then should ask, How can we honor it and do our best to support it? We need to acknowledge what we see happening in the world, engage with it, and call it out for what it is, destructive to humanity. We can do better, and in this area, we need to speak up.

Let’s start with these two elements: truthfulness and compassion. Here is what we may do.

 ·         Refuse to entertain pronouncements from unreliable sources. Demand credibility.

·         Believe that facts are real and matter in the long run.

·         Try not to get too discouraged.

·         Watch for examples of compassion popping up in your neighborhoods like bulbs emerging in the spring. Feed these examples with our own compassionate and truthful actions.

·         Refuse to inflict pain at the direction of others.

·         Provide sustenance to those suffering the effects of falsity and cruelty.

 Let’s challenge ourselves to live up to these ideals. We can play a role, however small, by cultivating these behaviors. I think these are legitimate and satisfying small steps each of us can take.